Tag Archives: DV case quashed by HC

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

Advertisements

Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnataka HC as its nothing but abuse of process of Court

* Serial case filing wife files maintenance cacse, 498a and also DV
* Husband assails DV case and files for quash at the Karnataka HC
* HC appreciates facts of the case and the report of the social welfare officer who talks about some threats to withdraw a maintenance case
* However that maintenance case is already decreed and over some years ago and so there is NO chance of withdrawing that case
* So DV case by wife is quashed by Karnataka HC who calls it an abuse of the process of law !!

*****************************disclaimer*******************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2014

BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11022/2013

BETWEEN:

1. SRI.RAVIKUMAR S/O RUDRAPPA KALASHETTI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O.NEHRU COLONY 4TH CROSS ROAD,
UDAYANAGAR, BANGALORE

2. SMT.SUSHILA RUDRAPPA KALASHETTI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O.NEHRU COLONY 4TH CROSS ROAD,
UDAYANAGAR, BANGALORE … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A MALI, ADV.)

AND:

SMT.PANKAJA W/O RAVIKUMAR KALASHETTI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O.ANANTPUR, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM … RESPONDENT

(RESDT – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE BEARING CRL.MISC.NO.162/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, ATHANI, REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 9(B) AND 37(2)(C) OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ONLY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. The respondent though served remained un-represented.

2. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.162/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Athani registered under the provisions of Sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act’, for short) against the petitioners.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that, even on plain reading of the allegations made in the petition, it does not attract any provisions of DV Act. Secondly, he contended that the sole ground urged by the complainant in the misc. petition is that, the petitioners are forcing the complainant to withdraw the maintenance petition filed by her in the year 2009. He drew my attention to the fact that, the said petition was disposed of by the Court in Cri.Misc.No.523/2009 vide orders dated 03.12.2011 itself and the question of forcing the wife to withdraw the said petition does not arise. Except this one point, there is nothing in the complaint lodged by the wife before the trial Court.

4. Further the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that, the respondent/wife is in the habit of filing cases against the petitioners and in fact there are a number of cases filed by her against the petitioners and this is one of those cases, which is filed in order to harass the petitioners invoking the provisions of DV Act. Such attitude of the respondent should be scuttled down by this Court by exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, he pleads for quashing of the proceedings.

5. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully perused the materials produced before this Court and the certified copies of the documents showing the pendency of other cases between the parties. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage of complainant solemnized on 25.05.2003 with the 1st petitioner herein. On 24.09.2008, the respondent has filed a complaint in Mahadevapur police station at Bangalore against the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the said matter has been compromised between the parties. It is alleged that the respondent left the conjugal company of the 1st petitioner on 22.05.2009 along with her daughter Likita. Thereafter, it appears that rift began between the husband and wife. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. Records also disclose that, on 14.06.2009 the respondent/wife has filed a complaint against the petitioners before Athani police station in Athani PS Crime No.222/2009 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, it appears the charge sheet has been filed and the said case is registered in C.C.No.636/2009, which is still pending before the said Court. The records also disclose that the respondent/wife has filed a maintenance petition in Crl.Misc.No.523/2009 and after due contest, the Court has ordered a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the daughter of the 1st petitioner towards their maintenance and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards expense of the proceedings. However, the said order has not been put into execution since 2009. The respondent has not filed any application for recovery of any amount and it is not the allegation in the petition filed before the Domestic Violence Court that the husband has not at all paid any amount as ordered by the said Court. The learned Counsel submitted before the Court that the 1st petitioner has been regularly paying the amount which was ordered against him in the said maintenance petition. The respondent has not appeared before this Court and not raised any contention regarding any proceedings pending before the Court and that the amount ordered in the Crl.Misc.No.523/2009 has not been paid to her.

7. In this context it is seen that, on 03.04.2013 the respondent/wife once again made an application before the CDPO, Athani invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. I have carefully perused the application filed before the CDPO, who subsequently filed a report to the Court and the Court has taken cognizance and issued notice to the petitioners under the provisions of the DV Act. The said application filed on 03.04.2013 clearly discloses that since 4- 5 years after her marriage and after the birth of her daughter Likita, the rift started between the husband and wife. In fact she alleged that the 2nd petitioner – her mother-in-law is the main cause for the rift between the husband and wife, as the 2nd petitioner often forced the respondent herein to bring gold and money from her parental house. Insofar as these allegations are concerned, there is already a case filed under Section 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the IPC, which I have referred to above.

8. Insofar as Domestic Violence petition is concerned, it is specifically alleged that the Criminal Court ordered an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance, but her husband and his family were forcing her to withdraw the said petition and therefore, she alleged that they have committed an illegal act under the DV Act. Except these two sentences, nothing has been stated in order to attract any other provisions of the DV Act. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also supported by the documents produced before this Court, the maintenance petition was disposed of by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani in the year 2011 itself vide orders dated 03.12.2011. The impugned petition filed on 03.04.2013 i.e., merely after 2 ½ years. Therefore, the question of petitioners forcing the respondent to withdraw the said maintenance petition does not appear to be proper and correct.

9. Under the above said circumstances, in the absence of any other materials before the trail Court and the materials produced before this Court to attract D.V. Act, on the other hand other materials disclosing that the respondent is in the habit of filing complaint against the husband and his family members, particularly insofar as this case is concerned, there is no reason for filing the petition under the said act. The allegations made are proved to be not correct on the basis of the orders passed by the learned JMFC in Crl.Misc.No.523/2009. Therefore, as rightly contended, filing of the application before the CDPO, Athani on the allegations, which are not based on any factual proof amounts to abuse of process of the Court. Hence the proceedings deserves to be quashed.

10. Before concluding, it is also pertinent to note here the Domestic Incident Report submitted by the Child Development Project Officer, who has also categorically stated as under:

“The only problem is that of mother in law Smt. Sushila. The applicant told that mother in law is a widow in very young age. She also told that she is not of good character. Mother in law is doing all unwanted things in front of applicant herself. The applicant’s husband is sober man. Mother in law is misusing the obedient nature of her son. Mother in law taken away 10 tolas of gold from the applicant. Now forcing for Rs. 2 lakh from applicant. The mother in law is forcing applicant to go for job against her will. Regarding this, there is already a case in front of Hon’ble court at Athani. Rs.8,000/- per month maintenance is ordered but so far no maintenance is given by respondent. The major problem is that mother in law is forcing applicant along with her sisters to take the case back. They are also threatening the applicant of her life and also making false cases against the brother of the applicant. ”

11. The above said report discloses that, so far other allegation of demand of dowry and also threatening the respondent etc., there is a criminal case already filed and pending before the Court and the complainant might not have brought to the notice of the CDPO with regard disposal of the maintenance petition, in which an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was ordered as maintenance and Rs.2,000/- as expenses ordered by the Criminal Court.

12. Looking at the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, there is absolutely no domestic violence incident as alleged and the allegations referred to are of ill-treatment and harassment of the respondent, for which a case under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC is already pending. Therefore, in my opinion, the present Domestic Violence petition filed before the trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER : Petition is allowed.

All further proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani in Cri.Misc.No.162/2013 under Section 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2006 insofar as it relates to the present petitioners is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE gab/-